FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

CGL, Builders Risk Coverage and Exclusions When Construction Defects Cause Property Damage

May 17, 2021 — Jeffrey Cavignac - Construction Executive
Direct damage to property under construction caused by faulty or defective work or defective materials has been a coverage issue for decades. Two specific policies, the Commercial General Liability for the contractors building the structure and the Builders Risk Policy on the project both are sources of potential coverage. A CGL policy protects the named insured (the contractor in this case) from third party liability arising out of the insured’s operations that results in either bodily injury or property damage. Damage to property caused by poor workmanship or defective materials would qualify as property damage. To understand how the CGL policy might respond to claims such as these, it is necessary to evaluate several exclusions in the CGL policy. CGL policies cover “property damage,” defined as physical injury to tangible property, including loss of use of such property, and loss of use of tangible property that has not been physically injured. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey Cavignac, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Video: Contractors’ Update on New Regulations Governing Commercial Use of Drones

September 01, 2016 — David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law Blog
At a presentation before the AGC of Georgia, AHHC attorneys Mark Hanrahan, David Cook, and Chadd Reynolds covered “Contractors’ Update on New Regulations Governing Commercial Use of Drones.” View the presentation here: https://vimeo.com/177566370 On June 23, 2016, the Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration issued new regulations regarding non-hobby and non-recreational civil operation of small unmanned aircraft systems. These regulations are intended to limit interference with federal airspace while advancing research and safety in commercial industries. They also addressed practical implications and how to comply by the August 29, 2016 deadline. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

---

Damages in First Trial Establishing Liability of Tortfeasor Binding in Bad Faith Trial Against Insurer

October 22, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court considered whether, in a second trial for bad faith, the insured was required to again prove her damages, instead of relying on the jury's damage determination in the first trial where the tortfeasor's liability was established. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Paton, 2014 Fla. Ct. App. LEXIS 14362 (Fla. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2014). The insured was injured in a car accident caused by the negligence of the underinsured driver. Geico paid the insured the $10,000 policy limit under her policy. The insured's mother also had uninsured/underinsured coverage with Geico, with policy limits of $100,000. When the insured demanded the $100,000 policy limits from her mother's policy, Geico offered $1,000. Later, Geico offered $5,000, but returned to the $1,000 offer after the insured refused to settle. When the insured reduced her demand to $22,500, Geico did not respond. The insured sued and the case went to trial. The jury awarded $10,000 for past pain and suffering, and $350,000 for future pain and suffering. The verdict set the insured's total damages at $469,247. Geico did not file a motion for new trial nor did it appeal. Judgment was entered in favor of the insured, but was limited to the $100,000 UM policy limits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

California Court Forces Insurer to Play Ball in COVID-19 Insurance Coverage Suit

December 13, 2022 — Latosha M. Ellis & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
One of the threshold issues in COVID-19 insurance coverage cases that have been brought across the country is whether the policyholder’s allegations meet the applicable pleading standard in alleging that the virus caused physical loss or damage. In many cases, the courts have gotten it wrong, effectively holding policyholders to a higher standard than required. But recently, a California federal judge righted those wrongs by acknowledging the correct pleading standard in that case, which is whether the allegations state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The Court, here, correctly recognized that the policyholder, the Los Angeles Lakers, met that pleading standard when it alleged that the COVID-19 virus can cause physical loss or damage by physically altering property. In its complaint, the Los Angeles Lakers alleged that the virus physically altered its property by changing its chemical and physical property conditions, creating viral vectors that required remedial measures before the property was safe again. Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 591 F. Supp. 3d 672 (C.D. Cal. 2022), adhered to on reconsideration, 2022 WL 16571193 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2022). The Court agreed that these allegations by the Lakers adequately pled physical alteration to support a claim for property damage. The insurer requested reconsideration of the decision, and the Court emphatically affirmed its prior decision, explaining its rationale as follows: The Court lacks the scientific expertise necessary to conclude, based solely on the allegations in the FAC . . . that it is not plausible for the Lakers’ property to have been physically altered by the Virus, which the Lakers adequately alleged. Consequently, the Court, in the March 17 Order, concluded that the Lakers’ theory was plausible. Whether the Lakers can actually prove its theory will be determined at summary judgment or trial. Reprinted courtesy of Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Supreme Court Allows Claim Under Unfair Competition Statute To Proceed

October 16, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Supreme Court determined that insurance practices violating the state's Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) could support a claim under the state's unfair competition law (UCL). Zhang v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 4th 353 (2013). Zhang purchased a CGL policy from California Capital Insurance Company. She sued California Capital in a dispute over coverage for fire damage to her commercial property. The complaint included causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the UCL. In her UCL claim, Zhang alleged that California Capital had "engaged in unfair, deceptive, untrue, and/or misleading advertising" by promising to provide timely coverage in the event of a compensable loss, when it had no intention of paying the true value of the insureds' covered claims. Zhang specifically alleged unreasonable delays causing deterioration of her property; withholding of policy benefits; refusal to consider cost estimates; misinforming her as to the right to an appraisal; and falsely telling her mortgage holder that she did not intend to repair the property, resulting in foreclosure proceedings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Update: New VOSH Maximum Penalties as of July 1

July 26, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As those who read Construction Law Musings know, as a construction attorney, I want to assure that not only are my clients successful in their litigation/dispute resolution endeavors, but that they stay out of trouble. I take my problem solving and advising roles quite seriously. As part of this role as advisor, I want to let those that read Musings know that as of July 1, 2017 the Virginia Occupational Safety and Health Administration increased their maximum penalties for safety violations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

EPA Announces that January 2017 Revised RMP Rules are Now Effective

February 06, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On December 3, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Federal Register notice advising the regulated community that EPA’s controversial Clean Air Act (CAA) stationary source Risk Management Program (RMP) rules are effective as of December 3, 2018 – the Final Rule: Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act (83 FR 62268). The initial package of the RMP rules was promulgated in 1996, but a series of chemical explosions prompted the development of new rules, whose process safety, third party auditing, emergency response, preparedness and information sharing provisions were designed to confront these challenges. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

June 18, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---